Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Relation between students’ personality traits and their preferred

teaching methods: Students at the university of Ghana and the
Huzhou Normal University
Osei Gideon Opoku a, b, c, *, Abass Adamu a, b, c, Opoku Daniel c, d
a
College of Teacher Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, PR China
b
College of Teacher Education, Huzhou University, Huzhou, PR China
c
Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Cape Coast, Ghana
d
College of Management Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study aimed to investigate the personality traits of students and their preferred teaching
Personality traits methods at the University of Ghana and Huzhou Normal University. The study specifically aimed
Cooperative teaching methods at identifying personality traits that apply to psychology students, the kinds of teaching methods
China
students preferred, and ascertaining the relationship between personality traits and preferred
Ghana
teaching methods. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used to conduct the research. The
sample size of two hundred and five (205) students from UG and Huzhou University was used. In
this study, the researchers collected the data with the help of structured questionnaires. Research
Question 1 and Question 2 will be analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Null hypothesis
(There is no relationship between personality traits and teaching methods), Hypothesis 1 (There is
a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods) will be analyzed using the Chi-
Square. Data that will be collected will be analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sci­
ences (*SPSS). The study found that the conscientiousness personality trait among students at
both University of Ghana and Huzhou University is the dominant personality trait. The preferred
teaching method of students at both University of Ghana and Huzhou University is the cooper­
ative learning method other than teaching methods. There is a relationship between personality
traits and teaching methods: There is no relationship between students (participants’) personality
traits and teaching methods at both University of Ghana and Huzhou University. It was concluded
that most participants possessed conscientiousness personality traits, followed by the agree­
ableness personality trait and extraversion in UG. For Huzhou University, the conscientiousness
personality trait was included by most students, followed by extraversion and agreeableness. It
was recommended that the Ministry of Education (MoE) in Ghana and China create, plan and
revise their various contents for University Education so that it is geared towards students
preferred teaching methods (cooperative method of teaching).

* Corresponding author. College of Teacher Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, PR China.

E-mail address: ueraopoku@gmail.com (O.G. Opoku).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13011
Received 1 November 2022; Received in revised form 8 January 2023; Accepted 13 January 2023
Available online 16 January 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

1. Introduction

Universities offer various teaching modalities, from lectures to interactive group discussions, demonstrations, tutorials, and col­
laborations. Methods vary as a function of the topic being taught, the different assessment criteria, and the preferences of lecturers who
may emphasize theoretical, practical, or mixed approaches. Yet little work has been done on students’ appreciation for different
teaching modalities, let alone on what determines these preferences [1].
Personality traits reflect people’s characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As defined by, personality is the
dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical traits that determine his unique adjustment to his environment. It
is also the characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving [2]. People differ
regarding where they stand on basic trait dimensions that persist over time and across situations. Traits are a component of emotional,
motivational, and social behavior. They describe, explain, and predict individual differences in human behavior and experience [3].
Teaching methods compromise principles and techniques for instruction to be implemented by teachers to achieve students’ desired
learning or memorization [4]. maintaining that teaching method work effectively mainly if they suit learners’ needs since every
learner interprets and responds to questions uniquely [5].

1.1. Background to the study

Generally, it has been assumed that if there is a fit between the students’ preferred teaching methods and those chosen by the
lecturer, the results would be both happier and more academically successful. However, research often fails to support this hypothesis
[6]. Most research has concentrated on students’ personality traits or preferred learning styles rather than their preferred teaching
method. This study explores a correlation between personality dimensions and students’ desired teaching methods. The big five models
would be used to measure the typical personality of students. As [7,8] mentioned that it appears that many personality psychologists
believe reached that five personality constructs, referred to as the Big Five, are necessary and sufficient to describe the basic di­
mensions of normal personality. The scope of this study would be the University of Ghana (U. G) in Ghana and Huzhou Normal
University in China. This study will examine the personality traits of psychology students in U.G. and Educational International
students of Huzhou Normal University and their desired teaching methods. It is referred to as the Big Five dimensions of personality
[9], which includes openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
[10] studied the “Big Five Predictive Learning” approach and hired 120 college students (286 women and 134 men) from Shanghai,
China, who volunteered to participate in the study. Studies have found that the characteristics of integrity and openness help explain
the differences in the approaches of most learning students. Conscientiousness is a good predictor of both deep and reachable systems.
Exposure considerably predicted a deep learning approach. Neuroticism is a good predictor of shallow learning approaches, but co­
ordination characteristics predict failure to learn techniques. Finally, no clear pattern was identified regarding the abduction rela­
tionship to any of the methods for learning that participants answered the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and Study Process Questionnaire.
We weighed the results of zero-order correlations, tests, multivariate analysis, and multiple regression procedures and found that the
five key personality traits somewhat predict the learning approach.
With 221 (111 female and 110 male) British Medical students [11121314], investigated how personality and learning styles affect
preference for various teaching methods. According to the researchers, the relationships between many personality traits and learning
approaches revealed that personality and learning approaches are separate but connected phenomena. Emotional stability, openness,
and agreeableness were all linked to a thorough approach to learning. These personality qualities were likewise linked to a negative
attitude toward learning on the surface. Still, conscientiousness was related to a positive attitude toward learning on the deep and
attaining levels. Preference for interactive teaching was linked to a mix of emotional stability, agreeableness, and a deep learning
strategy, according to hierarchical regression analyses. Individual disparities in educational situations are examined as well as the
implications.
[15] looked into how people learn and how they acquire broad knowledge. A well-validated general knowledge test, a learning
styles questionnaire, and a measure of the Big Five personality traits were completed by 430 students from four universities. Their
correlational and regression study revealed that, in addition to age and gender, two characteristics accounted for about a fifth of the
variance in general knowledge: a surface learning style and openness to experience. Furthermore, general knowledge is associated with
cognitive capacity (more so with I.Q. than with abstract reasoning), usual intellectual engagement, and openness to experience, ac­
cording to Furnham et al. (2008). According to a hierarchical regression, IQ was the strongest predictor of general knowledge, ac­
counting for 26% of the variance in general knowledge. Openness (15%), on the other hand, contributed incremental validity to the
conflict explained. These findings are compared to earlier research in general knowledge and the personality–intelligence relationship
[15]. looked at personality, intelligence, and learning styles as determinants of academic achievement and found that Academic
performance (A.P.) was linked to ability, achieving, and deep learning approaches, as well as Openness and Conscientiousness. These
variables explained 40% of the variance in A.P. when combined. According to path analyses, the impacts of ability on A.P. were
mediated by personality and learning approaches. They also conducted a second study examining the association between the Big Five
personality traits and learning styles, focusing on openness. In their findings, they claimed that there is less overlap between learning
styles and personality attributes than previously thought [15].
[16] confirmed that conscientiousness and openness are mediated by the strategic and deep approaches concerning achievement
better to understand personality, learning methods, and accomplishment. Additionally, through the surface approach, neuroticism has
both a direct and indirect effect on achievement. They discovered that the three learning methods explained variance in achievement
beyond personality using hierarchical regression analysis [17]. the claim that (a) I.Q. has little to do with learning styles; (b) TIE has a

2
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

lot to do with all three types of learning styles; (c) deep learning has the most variance with TIE; and (d) learning is best explained by
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness. Intelligence and personality only accounted for 25% of the diversity in
surface learning. As a result, there is a lot of overlap between personality traits and learning styles, but not enough to dismiss either as
superfluous. Furthermore [16], discovered that the predictive validity of ability and non-ability characteristics varied depending on
completed exams. Around ten percent of the variance in college examination results is due to individual differences.
In contrast to the previous literature [15], claims that a relative-scored Big Five personality measure can help to limit the effects of
biased responding and that students exposed to relatively simple instructions to fake good, as if simulating a job interview situation,
were able to.

i. Distort the factor structure of a standard Big Five personality measure.

ii. Successfully show themselves more enhanced, emphasizing Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability, the two most essential
personality predictors.
ii. To reduce the relationship between standard Big Five measures and two performance measures (CGPA and CAQ) to insignificance.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Recent research has looked at the link between students’ Big Five personality traits and their preferences for various methods of
academic evaluation [14,15], as well as their academic success [11,13]. Professional accreditations in fields such as business, law, and
medicine offer a variety of teaching methods, ranging from traditional lecture-style instruction to more interactive discussion groups,
lab sessions, and practical tutorials. These teaching methods, undoubtedly, may fit different personalities and learning styles. How­
ever, there has not been a specific study on students’ personalities and their desired teaching methods in Ghana though related studies
have been done in developed countries. For example,
Learning and Individual Differences [18] by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham, and Martin Lewis in London, UK, predict
preference for alternative teaching methods based on personality and learning styles. Is the Big Five a good predictor of learning
techniques? [19] Li-fang Zhang, Personality and Individual Differences, Shanghai, China. The connection between personality,
learning style, and academic performance In Scotland [20], Angus Duff, Elizabeth Boyle, Karen Dunleavy, and John Ferguson pub­
lished Personality and Individual Differences. Personality and learning styles as indicators of academic success, European Journal of
Personality [21]. In Norway, it’s called Diseth. As a result, the current research aims to learn more about students’ personality features
and preferred teaching approaches.

1.3. Research objectives

The study’s objective is to assess students’ personality traits and their desired teaching methods. Specifically, this study identifies
the following.

i. Identify the dominant personality traits in psychology students in U. G and educational, international students of Huzhou Normal
University.
ii. Find the teaching methods that psychology students in U. G and educational, international students of Huzhou Normal University
prefer.
ii. Assess the relationship between students’ personality traits and desired teaching methods.

1.4. Research question and hypothesis

To find answers to the problem, the following research questions and hypotheses would guide the study.
Research Question.

i. What are the dominant personality traits among psychology students in U. G and educational, international students of Huzhou
Normal University?
ii. What is the preferred teaching method among psychology students in U. G and educational, international students of Huzhou
Normal University?

Hypotheses: There is a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods.

1.5. Significance of the study

This research will be embarked upon with the hope that the findings will provide a deeper insight and understanding of this topic
and contribute to knowledge. Again, this research would benefit the Ghana Education Service (GES), Ministry of Education Ghana
(MOE), Ministry of Education, China, Universities, and Students in both countries. However, recent studies have looked at the rela­
tionship between students’ Big Five personality traits and their preferences for different types of academic assessment. Personality
traits and preferences for different teaching modalities remain unexplored. On the other hand, it is essential to know whether per­
sonality, in particular, can account for students’ teaching preferences, as teaching methods may affect students’ learning and, in turn,

3
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

their academic performance.

1.6. Limitations of the study

This study was limited to only Psychology students at the University of Ghana (UG) and Educational International students of
Huzhou Normal University. The study could not cover all students at the University of Ghana and Huzhou Normal University. Some
questionnaires distributed for the study were not adequately filled for analysis. Time constraint was one of the significant limitations of
this study. Getting literature on some of the theories of the constructs also proved a hurdle. There will be difficulties in collecting data
as I will have to go back to Ghana to collect the data myself. Although the study was personality traits of students and their preferred
teaching methods at the University of Ghana (U.G) and Huzhou Normal University, this study was delimited to only psychology
students at U.G Educational International and international students at Huzhou Normal University.

2. Literature review

In this paper, the emphasis will be on reviewing the literature on previous research on the related topic. The literature review is
made up of two areas: the theoretical perspective and the empirical perspective. Most of the reviews are on personality traits and
desired teaching methods. The study on personality traits emphasizes the view of personality using the Big Five Model.

2.1. Theoretical perspectives

According to Ref. [22], traits refer to any distinguishable and relatively enduring way an individual varies from others. Similarly
[23], defined traits as any relatively enduring way an individual differs from another. There exist theories propounded by Psychol­
ogists in the areas of traits that explore the stability, consistency, and combination of the characteristics that make up the individual
personality.

2.1.1. Dimensions of personality: the big five

The Big Five personality traits is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits, developed from the 1980s onward in
psychological feature theory established by D.W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers, including Norman (1967), Smith
(1967), Goldberg (1981), and McCrae & Costa (1987). When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey
data, it reveals semantic associations, which are words used to describe aspects of personality. These associations are often applied to
the same person. For example, someone told as conscientious is more likely to be related as “always prepared” rather than “messy.”
These associations suggest five broad dimensions used in ordinary language to describe the human personality, temperament, and
psyche. The model became known as the “Big Five” and has received much attention. It has been researched across many populations
and cultures and is today’s most widely accepted theory of personality. Each Big Five personality trait represents broad categories
covering many personality-related terms. Each trait encompasses a multitude of other facets. For example, the trait of Extraversion is a
category that contains labels such as Gregariousness (sociable), Assertiveness (forceful), and Activity (energetic), Excitement-seeking
(adventurous), Positive emotions (enthusiastic), and Warmth (outgoing) (John & Srivastava, 1999). Therefore, while not completely
exhaustive, the Big Five cover virtually all personality-related terms.
Other investigators believed that 16 essential personality factors were still too many, and they found evidence that some of Cattell’s
dimensions were redundant and overlapping. For instance, a person described as talkative is highly likely also to be described as
gregarious and is not at all possible to be regarded as secretive—as a result, counting these phrases as distinct features are pointless.
Instead, they can be considered a reflection of a single trait, with talkative and gregarious marking the high end of the attribute and
secretive marking the low end of the quality. This logic convinced researchers that Cattell’s 16 personality factors could be readily
compacted into five (5), which led to the trait system currently supported by the most evidence, a technique known as the Big Five [24,
25]. The Big Five are most often presented as five nonoverlapping dimensions: extraversion. (sometimes called extroversion),
neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience [26,27]. These dimensions seem helpful for describing
personalities in many different cultural settings [27,28]. To diminish the challenge of remembering the Big Five, suggested the
mnemonic OCEAN.
Introversion means focusing one’s energies on one’s inner world of thoughts and feelings, whereas extraversion involves directing
one’s energies toward the outer world of other people and material items. Emotional stability is the opposite of neuroticism, which
denotes being prone to unpleasant affect. Agreeability is a trusting and laid-back attitude toward others. Conscientiousness entails
living a life that is well-organized, efficient, and disciplined. Finally, unconventionality, intellectual curiosity, and an interest in new
ideas, foods, and hobbies are all examples of openness to new experiences.

2.1.2. Hans Eysenck’s studies of personality traits: two dimensions of personality

Hans Eysenck is an English psychologist who has spent the last four decades studying the basic dimensions of personality. Using the
techniques of factor analysis to analyze many measures of personality, behavior, and self–reported feelings and beliefs, Eysenck
concluded that there are two essential dimensions of personality. The first is Jung’s critical dimension identified many years before,
introversion versus extroversion, but Eysenck defines these traits slightly differently. Introversion, according to Eysenck, is composed
of reserve, lack of sociability, caution, and emotional control. Extroversion is composed of sociability, activity, daring, and expres­
siveness. People may be near one of the extremes or at any point between them.

4
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Eysenck’s second dimension is stability versus instability, sometimes called neuroticism. The stable individual is well-adjusted,
calm, relaxed, and easy-going, and the unstable or neurotic person is moody, anxious, restless, and temperamental. Different in­
dividuals can be characterized based on how much introversion, extroversion, and stability they show in their personalities. All of our
friends and colleagues can be located on these dimensions.

2.1.3. Raymond B. Cattell: factor analysis

Cattell has used factor analysis extensively to study personality traits. He defines a trait as a tendency to react to related situations in
a way that remains more or less stable. He distinguished between two kinds of preferences: surface traits and source traits. Surface
traits are clusters of behavior that tend to go together. For instance, altruism is an example of a surface trait involving various related
behaviors, such as helping a fellow mate with a problem. Source traits are the underlying roots or causes of these behavioral clusters:
for example, ego, dominance, and submissiveness. Cattell believes that measuring these two traits will enable us to identify those
characteristics that all humans share and distinguish one person from another.
[29] discovered these traits by studying large numbers of people, believing that if there are fundamental personality characteristics,
we should be able to identify them using various methods. To discover underlying qualities, he used component analysis on subjective
judgments from peers. Overall, he concluded that personality comprises sixteen (16) primary or source features, which he categorizes
as opposing inclinations.

2.1.4. Gordon Allport’s traits approach

Gordon W. Allport was one of the most influential psychologists of his day. Many of his personality theories resemble those of
humanistic psychology. Allport, for example, emphasizes the reasonable, rational, and conscious motives for our actions. However, he
is most known for his ground-breaking work on characteristics. According to him, a feature renders a wide range of situations
“functionally analogous,” meaning it allows a person to recognize that many diverse conditions require similar responses. As a result,
attributes are to blame for the relative consistency of each person’s behavior). Allport thought of traits as internal structures that direct
an individual’s behavior in a consistent and characteristic way. He distinguished several different kinds of features. First, he deter­
mined common traits from unique traits, depending on whether they characterized many people or few. Second, he distinguished
cardinal, central, and secondary characteristics depending on how pervasively they manifested themselves in an individual’s
personality.
Common traits are friendliness or dominance, familiar to many people and by which individuals can be compared. For instance,
responsibility is a common trait, and one can measure the extent to which different people show it. More critical than common traits,
Allport felt, were what he called unique traits. These are unusual traits or traits that characterize individuals and give them their
unique personalities. They can include particular styles of humor and wit, optimism, or a deep and crude cynicism and hostility shown
under pressure. Both standard and unique traits can be either cardinal, central or secondary, depending on how pervasive they
manifest. The most pervasive of a person’s characteristics are said to be cardinal traits. These traits direct behavior inconsistent ways in
many situations and thus make those situations “functionally equivalent.” The cardinal traits lead a person to behave similarly in
different situations. For one individual, assertiveness may be a cardinal trait. Such a person might be loud and active with friends,
authoritative with a subordinate in a work situation, bold and outgoing with strangers, and self-satisfied when praised. Thus, if
assertiveness is a cardinal trait, it will show up in many different cases and be an enduring characteristic of the person.
People generally have only one cardinal trait, if any, but several central and secondary qualities. Prominent features are similar to
cardinal characteristics but are not as consistently manifested. Some common main traits are shyness, optimism, cheerfulness, and
introversion. There are unique central traits as well. Secondary characteristics are seen only in particular situations or at specific times.
They are essential characteristics of individuals; they are not as pervasive as central or cardinal traits. Instead, they help give a
complete picture of the person.

2.1.5. Direct Instruction

According to behavior theories of education, human behavior is influenced by contextually relevant consequences of behavior. As a
result, the discipline uses principles from behavioral experimentation analysis to improve educational performance. Specific moti­
vational, management and learning objectives are assessed in light of their potential repercussions, antecedents, and other contextual
elements. Precision in teaching stresses fluency development by increasing students’ response rates. Students begin by mastering a
simple or complex fact or skill (for example, correctly spelling a word, applying a mathematical algorithm, or giving a list of episodes
preceding a historical event). Mastery is frequently attained with the help of the teacher, pre-programmed information, scripted
courses, small groups, interactive education like “Direct Instruction” [30], and other methods.
Direct Instruction is an instructional style that requires, first and foremost, that the teachers have a mastery level grasp of the
subject matter. Regardless of whether the subject is taught at the elementary, middle, high, or college level, the teacher must properly
‘get’ the information. That means the teacher is not only aware of the facts but also of the content’s organization. It aids the teacher in
comprehending each piece of knowledge in multiple ways. As a result of the material presented, all pupils can grasp the indicated
objectives. The work of Engelmann and Carl Bereiter at the University of Oregon gave birth to Direct Instruction. The ‘Direct In­
struction Model of teaching aims to improve student accomplishment by providing precisely targeted Instruction. The curriculum
identifies specific talents and teaches students how to use them in increasingly complex circumstances. The model intends to give high-
intensity, high-efficiency lessons that will enable all children to grasp academic skills.

5
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

2.1.6. Cooperative learning

Cooperative Learning is defined by Ref. [31] as a concept centered on group work in which learners are accountable for the
Learning of others and their own. The fact that cooperative Learning involves learner-to-learner interaction in the process of sup­
porting good Learning is a crucial element. Many cooperative approaches have been created since the organization’s foundation. These
techniques have been tried and tested in the science classroom. The primary goals of suitable procedures were to promote positive
ethnic relations and academic accomplishment in heterogeneous classes. The Group Investigation approach is one of many cooperative
learning strategies that have been created; Group investigation is an organizational method that allows students to engage actively and
cooperatively in small groups while also allowing them to determine their own learning goals and processes. Students must establish
small interest groups, organize and carry out their inquiry, synthesize the findings of the group members, and present their findings to
the whole class using the group investigation approach. This strategy can be considered a solution to the difficulty mentioned above.
Teachers that use this method must be able to manage the teaching-learning process properly. They will work in groups to explain the
materials supplied to them. As a result, when the teacher divides the pupils into groups, they must ensure that kids of varying levels are
placed together. Furthermore, the activity presented in Group exploration is engaging enough that students will notice a change in the
classroom and be more interested in Learning; this differs from other cooperative learning models but shares certain commonalities.
Johnson developed the Learning Together approach in 1975 and the Learning. The together technique is a cooperative learning
paradigm given by Refs. [32,33]. Heterogeneous grouping, positive interdependence, individual accountability, social skills, and
group processing are all principles of Learning Together. Heterogeneous grouping is based on mixed ability as determined by the
previous achievement. Setting a single purpose, assuming an identity, employing the same resources, receiving the same reward, and
so on help establish positive interdependence among group members. Individual accountability is regulated through personal prep­
aration and testing, responses to teacher inquiries, and group work presentations. Finally, group processing demonstrates learners’
achievement as a group and prepares them for future cooperative activities.
And Slavin and Lazarowitz created the Teams Games Tournaments (TGT) technique to help students improve their talents,
communicate with one another, and build self-esteem. Students learn in class using this strategy. The materials are provided, and
different activities are used to teach the content in groups or individually. After reviewing the subject, the students must present 2–6
points from their studies to their designated groups. There is a definite answer because the competition is based on a substance. A team
game tournament is an effective cooperative learning strategy in which students form groups that function in the classroom for a set
time. Before writing a written test, the groups revise a portion of the subject using this strategy. This encourages students afraid of
taking the test to study and reinforce what they have already learned. Small groups of students are formed to study and prepare for a
trivia game. This motivates children to learn while also allowing them to have fun while doing so. Because this is a collective project,
no single kid is to blame.

2.2. Conceptual review

2.2.1. Personality
People’s patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are reflected in personality traits. According to Ref. [2] personality is the
dynamic structure of psychological features within an individual that determines his distinctive adjustment to his environment.
Personality refers to a person’s attributes that account for consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving, according to Ref. [2].
People differ in various ways, including where they stand on basic trait dimensions that remain consistent through time and across
settings. Personality psychology is concerned with the dynamics of intra-individual functioning and individual lives’ coherence and
thematic unity. Scientific theories of personality differ from the ideas about persons you develop daily [34]. Again, there are two
fundamental determinants of personality [35], our heredity and past interactions with our surroundings. Our genetic makeup de­
termines our personalities’ lowest and upper boundaries, and our life experiences decide where we lie within that range [17].

2.2.2. Personality dimensions (The big five model)

Several personality trait inventories exist used by researchers in the discovery of the traits of people in different settings and
contexts. Some of these include Cattell’s 16 personality factor inventory, Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale, Eysenck’s ENP, and the Big
Five Factor Model, to mention a few. This work will resort to because it is widely used to assess personality, the Big Five Model was
chosen. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a 44-item questionnaire that evaluates a person’s character on the Big Five Factors (dimensions)
[26]. The personality facets are then separated into each of these variables. Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
and neuroticism make up the BFI. According to Ref. [26], the Five Factor Model has a lot of empirical evidence and is widely accepted
as a trait personality model that may give the needed personality variable consistency across samples and context. As indicated by
Ref. [8], it appears that many personality psychologists have concluded that the Big Five personality constructs are required and
sufficient to characterize the core characteristics of a normal personality. The breadth of these dimensions is advantageous since it
condenses many personality traits into a manageable set of measurements for research [36]. This means, in part, that the model is
widely used and appropriate for use in any study. The Big Five personality traits and academic success have been the subject of the
most thorough study of their strength. Along with cognitive ability, research also looked at the incremental validity of personality
variables in predicting academic success [37].

2.2.3. Openness
As per [38], openness to experience refers to a person’s ability to have diverse interests and be inventive, creative, and open to new
ideas. People who are fond of showing curiosity, fantasy, aesthetics, actions, feelings and values. Thus, honest people have a strong

6
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

need for autonomy and are more likely to be innovative, adaptable, and change-tolerant [32,33]. Similarly, according to Ref. [39],
open people are sometimes more equipped to grasp and adapt to different ideas. Individuals who score high on openness should be
more likely to report involvement in their work, as it can serve as a venue for them to indulge their curiosity, appetite for new per­
spectives, and propensity in developing genuine interests in whatever activities they engage in Ref. [40].

2.2.4. Conscientiousness
Conscientious people are more organized, thorough, and prepared ahead [17]. Moral people have competence, order, dutifulness,
accomplishment-seeking, self-discipline, and deliberateness. Conscientiousness is defined by Ref. [38] as the degree to which a person
is accountable, dependable, persistent, and goal-oriented. A conscientious person is laser-focused on a few objectives they pursue with
purpose, whereas a less moral person is easily distracted and impulsive. These folks have been described as dependable, responsible,
tenacious, planful, and organized, according to Barrick and Mount (1991). Individuals with high levels of this attribute are reliable,
cautious, planful, diligent, and achievement-oriented [7]. According to Ref. [41], conscientious persons have a strong feeling of duty
and obligation to their jobs, as well as promising job performance, professional success, motivation, and job satisfaction.

2.2.5. Extroversion
Extraversion encompasses a wide range of characteristics, including talkativeness, vigour, and assertiveness [32]. People who tend
to possess this trait are equally gregarious, assertive, adventurous, energetic, enthusiastic and outgoing [42]. On the other hand,
extroverts like their own company and prefer the familiar and unfamiliar, whereas extroverts crave engagement with others, unique
experiences, and complex, varied, and intense stimuli. In the same vein, Extraversion is frequently defined as the degree to which a
person is friendly, gregarious, talkative, assertive, adventurous, active, energetic, and ambitious, according to Ref. [43]. Extroverts are
socially active, gregarious, aggressive, vocal, articulate, and comfortable in group settings, according to Ref. [44], and have many
friends. Extroversion is defined as being friendly, gregarious, aggressive, and chatty, according to Ref. [45]. Extroverts’ need for power
and recognition may lead them to take more risks at work, and they expect the organization to support their efforts [46].

2.2.6. Agreeableness
This dimension includes traits like sympathetic, kind and affectionate [17]. Agreeableness is characterized by trust, straightfor­
wardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness [38]. agreeableness is the ability to get along with others by being
pleasant, cooperative, forgiving, compassionate, understanding, and trusting. Agreeable people have an easier time making friends and
have a large number of them. In contrast, those who are disagreeable have fewer intimate ties. According to Bass (1985), persons who
are high on agreeableness are concerned about people’s growth and development requirements (individualized consideration) and are
more inclined to ensure that people are suitably rewarded and praised “for work well done” (contingent reward).

2.2.7. Neuroticism
Neuroticism is always linked to poor effects and low self-esteem [36]. Negative affect is described as a predisposition to view the
world in a negative emotional state, according to Ref. [44]. Anxiety, angry hostility, sadness, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and
fragility are all part of the trait. Similarly [38], defines this dimension as a person’s level of adjustment, calmness, and security.
Negatively influential people are more likely to focus on the negative characteristics of others and themselves [47]. Pessimistic people
are more prone to negative attitudes toward themselves and the world around them. In the same vein, low self-esteem causes people to
withdraw from difficult situations, be less confident in their talents, be less willing to seek feedback, and regard themselves as less
appealing to others, according to Ref. [48]. According to Ref. [8], neuroticism can be defined as a person’s level of emotionality,
insecurity, nervousness, fear, and apprehension. Other studies claim that people with this feature have inadequate social skills and are
uninterested in long-term relationships [39]. supports this premise by stating that neurotic people have severely limited social skills.

2.2.8. Teaching and lecture methods

Teaching methods are patterns of teacher behavior that occur either concurrently or in sequence in a verifiable way. They can
equally be the techniques through which basic facts and concepts are presented to learners by instructors. One of the most critical
decisions a teacher must make is which teaching methods best achieve course objectives. Some of the lecture methods are the
brainstorming model, the discussion model, the question-and-answer type, and the role-play method, to mention a few.
A lecture is described as one person speaking to a group about a specific subject or theme for an extended period. A lecture, ac­
cording to the university administration, is “a time slot in the schedule where students are taught in a designated space, such as a
lecture theatre, in a group that can range in size from 20 to 800 and more, and where one lecturer is responsible for ‘delivering
content’" [49]. It is a narrative strategy for imparting a body of knowledge vocally according to a predetermined plan of action.
According to it, in the lecture technique, a fact or concept is conveyed orally to groups of students who take notes, participate in
learning seldom, and learn passively rather than actively.” In postsecondary education, the lecture is one of the earliest and most
extensively utilized instructional methods. Since the beginning of university education, it has been a critical component of university
teaching and learning programs. Given the increasing financial demands on higher education worldwide, the lecture will almost
certainly continue to be widely employed for many years [50].
An analysis of the connections between Iranian EFL learners’ learning styles and proficiency levels has been studied by Derakhshan
and Shakki, 2018. Additionally, they proposed that learning styles may be influenced by proficiency level [51]. Shakki 2022 [52],
stated that the engagement of Iranian EFL Students in L2: The Role of Teacher-Student Relationship and Teacher Support. A lecture is a
teaching approach in which the lecturer is the primary source of knowledge. In most cases, an instructor will stand before a class and

7
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

provide information to the pupils. To give images to pupils, they may write on the board or use an overhead projector. While listening
to the lecture, students are expected to take notes [50]. During a lecture, the instructor and the students usually have little interaction
[53]. defines this didactic style as “instruction through the transmission of information” and claims that this learning philosophy
believes students are “passive recipients” of the lecturer’s knowledge. The lecture method should not be confused with the teacher
providing information. There are three key reasons to employ the lecture format, according to Ref. [54]: to convey information, to
pique interest, and to promote comprehension.

2.2.9. Discussion method

Teachers should decide on pacing and curricular emphasis based on the desired learning goal so that students have every op­
portunity to learn. The teacher should employ teaching techniques appropriate for both the material and the students. A teacher can
use a variety of teaching techniques, including discussion. Two or more people express, clarify, and share their information, experi­
ences, ideas, and feelings in a debate. On the other hand, according to Abercrombie, some aspects of one’s worldview are compared
and contrasted with others through conversation. The discussion class is designed to be a free exchange of ideas between the teacher
and students, as well as among students, about the current course topic of concern. The concept of discussion is to take a topic and
investigate all solutions to reach a mutual understanding of the problem. Discussion-based teaching can be an excellent way to help
students apply abstract concepts and think critically about what they’re learning. It is critical to be clear about the discussion’s goals
and how they relate to the broader course. If possible, alter the seating so that students face each other rather than the teacher. If
students must prepare ahead of time, present them with suitable materials and thought questions to aid in their preparation, as [55]
emphasizes by stating that elaboration is the essence of the discussion. The teacher must encourage pupils to participate in class
discussions. There is no single answer to the dilemma of what to do with the youngster who is the centre of attention. On the other
hand, a teacher can lead a class to a place where they communicate courteously without always agreeing with one another and do so
without raising their hands to speak through meticulous and patient teaching. “Allowing students to paraphrase, explain, and comment
on their own or other students’ remark is a great method to keep a discussion moving along and on track,” according to Ref. [55].

2.2.10. Academic role play

Academic roleplaying (not to be confused with roleplaying games) can be characterized as the participation and observation of
participants and observers in a real-life problem situation, as well as the desire for resolution and understanding that this participation
fosters [56]. The roleplaying process provides students with a live sample of human behavior that allows them to: explore their
feelings; gain insights into their attitudes, values, and perceptions; improve their problem-solving skills and attitudes; and explore
subject matter in a variety of ways [56]. According to Ref. [57], roleplaying is " … a medium in which a person is allowed to engage in,
and interact with the contents of this world, and its players, through immersion into a role and the world of this role” (p. 108) [58].
employed roleplaying to teach creativity to undergraduate education students successfully, but they also feel it can help develop
constructive critique skills.

2.2.11. Brainstorming model

Brainstorming is a group or individual creativity strategy for determining a definitive conclusion for a specific problem by gath­
ering information in the form of a list of ideas that are provided spontaneously by the members [59]. Alex Osborn was the first to
popularize the concept in 1953. He thinks that individuals who develop ideas independently are less efficient than those who generate
ideas through brainstorming. Though this claim may be debatable in today’s world, it is nonetheless used to refer to all group
brainstorming sessions [60].
Son (2001) defined brainstorming as one of the conversation approaches that enables group members to develop the most sig­
nificant number of different and unique ideas spontaneously in an open climate, not limited to critical launch ideas that represent
problem solutions and then choose the best ones. Brainstorming is simple and successful when employed as an approach to teaching
social studies, especially when introducing new concepts. It works because it draws on the pupils’ prior knowledge and piques their
attention [60]. While the pupils are learning, the teacher can assess whether or not they have sufficient initial ability to continue with
the lecture. Students can generate ideas for handling specific problems, and as a result, they can create questions about how the
problem arose and the best way to address it.
Other types of research, such as critical thinking, are required for the thought process in brainstorming. Students can use critical
thinking to comprehend a situation better and find the best answer. Furthermore, because it is well-suited for cooperative un­
dertakings, it aids in team building.

2.2.12. Cooperative learning model

Cooperative learning theory has much empirical evidence to back it up [32]. looked over 378 papers and found evidence to back up
the assumption that suitable goal systems are better than competitive and individual goal structures in terms of performance. These
findings have been confirmed in subsequent reviews and meta-analyses of collaborative learning in general [32,33,45,61], as well as
studies of cooperative learning in specific student populations: college students [62], students in post-secondary and professional
education undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology students in their early adolescences, and engineering
students.
Researchers in the field of cooperative learning have also conducted research in this area, demonstrating that collaborative learning
can provide a more engaging and relaxing learning environment (Han, 2014). Collaborative learning is widely acknowledged for its
ability to reduce anxiety, strengthen teacher-student and student-student connections, raise motivation, and boost self-confidence in

8
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

students. Learners in cooperative learning environments work together and interact with one another to attain their common goals. It
has also been argued in the collaborative learning literature that collaborative learning is an effective teaching-learning activity at the
university level. That cooperative learning supports deep learning techniques [63]. However, there is research that contradicts the
notion that collaborative learning fosters a deep approach to learning [64]. After implementing cooperative learning, students’ ratings
on the intrinsic motivation and deep learning scales improved, implying that collaborative learning was encouraged using deep
learning methodologies.

2.2.13. Teaching methods and student personality

According to research conducted by Ref. [65], “there is no difference in achievement between large and small courses, and it also
makes little difference what method of presentation of the course materials is employed” (p. 701). This idea is carried on by Ref. [65],
who repeated it, and [66], who did the same. On the other hand, these latter reviewers expressed optimism that research will be more
fruitful shortly [67]. further claims that no significant difference in exam performance was detected between students taught through a
lecture approach and those oriented through a guided reading method in his study. When no significant association was established
between a student’s choice of teaching technique and his examination performance after being taught by that approach, according to
Ref. [67], Stanton confirmed that the “no difference” in results from different teaching approaches could be due to crude measurement
devices that were unable to identify the true which genuinely exists. Despite this, certain features can distinguish students who prefer
to learn through lectures and those who like to learn through guided reading [67].

2.2.14. Gender differences and their personality traits

Gender differences are minimal relative to individual variability within genders, according to a study conducted by Ref. [68].
Differences are reproduced across cultures for college-age and adult samples, and differences are mainly congruent with gender
stereotypes. Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings were all higher in women, but Assertiveness and
Openness to Ideas were higher in men. Gender differences varied in magnitude between civilizations, contrary to evolutionary theory
predictions. Gender inequalities were most prominent in European and American countries where conventional sex roles are
diminished, contrary to the social role model’s predictions. According to a review of data on sex-related variations in cognition,
temperament, and social behavior in children and adults, men are more assertive and less anxious than women. No differences were
identified for the other variables evaluated, locus of control and self-esteem [69]. used meta-analysis to back up [70]’s findings that
women scored lower on assertiveness and higher on gregariousness (extraversion), anxiety, trust, and delicate-mindedness
(nurturance).

2.3. Empirical literature

Recent research has looked at the link between students’ Big Five personality traits, their preferences for various types of academic
assessment, and their academic performance [9–15]. Professional accreditations in fields such as business, law, and medicine offer a
variety of teaching methods, ranging from traditional lecture-style instruction to more interactive discussion groups, lab classes, and
practical tutorials. Each of these teaching methods may fit different personalities and learning styles. However, while analogous
studies have been conducted in industrialized nations, there has been no specific study on the essence of students and their preferred
teaching techniques in Ghana. For example, Learning and Individual Differences [18] by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham,
and Martin Lewis in London, UK, predicts preference for alternative teaching methods based on personality and learning styles. Is the
Big Five a good predictor of learning techniques? [19] Li-fang Zhang, Personality and Individual Differences, Shanghai, China. The
connection between personality, learning style, and academic performance In Scotland [20], Angus Duff, Elizabeth Boyle, Karen
Dunleavy and John Ferguson published Personality and Individual Differences. Personality and learning styles as indicators of aca­
demic success, European Journal of Personality [21]. In Norway, it’s called Diseth. As a result, the current research aims to learn more
about students’ personality features and preferred teaching approaches [19]. A total of 120 university students (286 females and 134
males) from Shanghai, PR, were used to research the top five predicted learning methodologies. China volunteered to take part in the
research. The study discovered that conscientiousness and openness qualities were the most critical factors in explaining the disparities
in students’ learning styles. For both the deep and achieving approaches, conscientiousness is a good predictor. The deep approach to
learning was significantly predicted by openness. The neuroticism characteristic is a good predictor of a simple learning method,
whereas the agreeableness trait indicates a non-achieving learning strategy. Finally, there was no discernible pattern in the connection
between extraversion and any of the learning modalities. The subjects completed the NEO FiveFactor Inventory and the Study Process
Questionnaire.
The results of zero-order correlation, t-tests, multivariate analysis, and multiple-regression techniques were cross-examined. It was
discovered that the big five personality traits do somewhat predict learning methodologies. With 221 (111 female and 110 male)
British Medical students [71], investigated how personality and learning styles affect preference for various teaching methods. Ac­
cording to the researchers, the relationships between many personality traits and learning approaches revealed that personality and
learning approaches are separate but connected phenomena. Emotional stability, openness, and agreeableness were all linked to a
thorough approach to learning. These personality qualities were likewise linked to a negative attitude toward learning on the surface.
Still, conscientiousness was related to a positive attitude toward learning on the deep and attaining levels. Preference for interactive
teaching was linked to a mix of emotional stability, agreeableness, and a deep learning strategy, according to hierarchical regression
analyses. Individual disparities in educational situations are examined as well as the implications [72]. investigated learning methods
and general knowledge acquisition. A well-validated available knowledge test, a learning styles questionnaire, and a measure of the

9
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Big Five personality factors were all completed by 430 students from four universities. Their correlational and regression analyses
revealed that, in addition to age and gender, two characteristics accounted for about a fifth of the variance in general knowledge: a
surface learning style and openness to experience. Furthermore [73], general knowledge is linked to cognitive capacity (more so with
IQ than abstract reasoning), usual intellectual involvement, and openness to new experiences. According to a hierarchical regression,
the strongest predictor of general knowledge was IQ, which explained 26% of the variance in general knowledge. Openness (15%), on
the other hand, contributed incremental validity to the conflict explained. These findings are compared to earlier research in general
knowledge and the personality–intelligence relationship.
As a result, there is a lot of overlap between personality traits and learning styles, but not enough to dismiss either as superfluous.
Furthermore [15], found that the predictive validity of ability and non-ability characteristics vary depending on the exams taken.
Around ten percent of the variance in college examination results is due to individual differences.

2.4. Previous research and literature gaps

The link between students’ Big Five personality traits and their preferences for various forms of academic evaluation [10–16], as
well as their academic achievement. Professional accreditations in fields like business, law, and medicine provide: A variety of teaching
modalities, Ranging from standard content-based lectures to more engaging discussion groups, Lab sessions, Practical tutorials.
Each of these teaching strategies will appeal to different personalities and learning styles. However, there has not been a specific
study on the essence of students and their desired teaching methods in Ghana, through related studies, has been done in developed
countries. For example, Learning and Individual Differences [18] by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham, and Martin Lewis in
London, UK, predicts preference for alternative teaching methods based on personality and learning styles. Is the Big Five a good
predictor of learning techniques? [19] Li-fang Zhang, Personality and Individual Differences, Shanghai, China. The connection be­
tween personality, learning style, and academic performance In Scotland [20], Angus Duff, Elizabeth Boyle, Karen Dunleavy, and John
Ferguson published Personality and Individual Differences. Personality and learning styles as indicators of academic success, European
Journal of Personality [21]. In Norway, it’s called Diseth. Thus, this work offers unique ideas and insights into how these students’
personalities and teaching methods. This study will look into the link between personality factors and preferred teaching methods of
psychology students at the University of Ghana and international students of Huzhou University (Accra – Ghana and Huzhou, Zhejiang
Province – China, respectively).

3. Methodology

This section focuses on the precise methodologies and procedures used in conducting this research. It explains how these strategies
were used and how well they contributed to achieving the goals. In-depth information about the research approach, research design,
study population, sampling technique, and sample size used to guide this research may be found in this chapter. Further information
about the data gathering instrument, the data collection technique, and data analysis is provided. It will also provide detailed in­
formation on how the study is/was conducted.

3.1. Research content

To conduct a scientific investigation, all components must work together to form a coherent whole. To accomplish this, the
researcher must create a design, a study strategy, or a plan for obtaining answers to the research questions [74]. define research design
as a rational and systematic approach to conducting research. It outlines the process the researcher intends to take to generate reliable
and interpretable data. The research design directs the researcher’s planning and interpretation of the study to attain the desired
outcome. The design’s control enhances the likelihood, but the study’s results accurately reflect the actual situation. The study was
conducted using a descriptive cross-sectional design. As illustrated by Ref. [58], the superior design identifies people’s perspectives on
various phenomena. The phenomena in this investigation were personality traits and teaching approaches, and this was chosen to
ensure that the study presented as objective as possible findings. Furthermore, the purposes of the study compared to studies such as a
quantitative approach where appropriate.

3.2. Study population

This is the group of students that the research is interested in, and it is from the target group that the sample is drawn. Therefore,
students who participated in the study were students of Psychology at the University of Ghana (UG) in the Greater Accra Region of
Ghana and Educational International students of Huzhou Normal University in Zhejiang Province in the People’s republic of China.

3.3. Target population

This is the group of students that the research is interested in, and it is from the target group that the sample is drawn. Therefore,
students who participated in the study were students of Psychology at the University of Ghana (UG) and Educational International
students of Huzhou Normal University and were willing to engage in the study. The sample size of three hundred and sixty-one (361)
students of UG from the department of psychology was used. The sample size determination procedure was based on the 18,000
population. The sample size was determined using both universities’ Krejcie and Morgan Table 1970. The researcher will use the

10
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

volunteer sampling technique because it is fair for all students. After all, they self-select themselves to become part of the study. This
eliminates situations whereby people are selected but are not willing to participate.

3.4. Sample and sampling procedure

The sample size of fifty-six (56) students of Huzhou Normal University from the International College of Education was used. The
sample size determination was done using Krejcie and Morgan Table 1970. The sample size determination procedure was based on the
67 population. The sample size of three hundred and sixty-one (361) students of UG from the department of psychology was used. The
sample size determination procedure was based on the 18,000 population. The researcher will use the volunteer sampling technique
because it is fair for all students who self-select themselves to become part of the study. This eliminates situations whereby people are
selected but are not willing to participate.

3.5. Research instrument

The data for this study was gathered by the researchers using structured questionnaires prepared with the supervisor’s support to
elicit responses relevant to the study’s aims. Closed-ended questions were included in the survey—close-ended questionnaires allowed
for specific structured answers or a selection of choices. Part, A consist of the demographic contents such as age, level, etc., Part B of the
questionnaire, was chosen from the Big Five Personality Test, which is by far the most scientifically proven and reliable psychological
model for measuring personality, and Part C was selected from the Honey and Mumford 40-item questionnaire. Peter Honey and Alan
Mumford created the Learning Styles Questionnaire, which has been widely used in industry and academics for over 35 years. The
Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) is a low-cost self-development tool used to assess learning preferences in people aged 16 and up.
The LSQ is based on David Kolb’s Learning Cycle, which examines how people learn rather than their preferences. The 40-item survey
is meant to get people and groups thinking about how they prefer to take in information and learn from their experiences; it follows the
learning cycle (do, review, conclude & plan). When a person’s preferred learning style is established, they are better positioned to
select learning situations that suit their preferred learning style (s).
This makes it easier for students to learn from various learning opportunities and experiences; it follows the learning cycle (do,
review, conclude & plan). When a person’s preferred learning style is established, they are better positioned to select learning situ­
ations that suit their preferred learning style (s). This makes it easier for children to learn from various learning opportunities.

3.6. Procedure of data collection

The researchers visited participants in their various lecture theatres. The questionnaires were hand-delivered to anyone who said
’yes’ and was selected and administered with questionnaires for the study, and it was done over five days: Monday to Friday. The
researcher did not visit participants in their various lecture theatres to administer questionnaires. The researcher joined the students’
official online groups/platforms (Wechat, DingTalk, and Whatsapp). The questionnaires were delivered online (A link to the ques­
tionnaires was posted on the official Platforms of students) to anyone who said ’yes’ and were selected and administered with
questionnaires for the study.

3.7. Data analysis and discussion

Research Question 1 and Question 2 will be analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Hypothesis (There is a relationship be­
tween personality traits and teaching methods) 1 will investigate using the Chi-Square. Data that will be collected will be analyzed
using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (*SPSS). Before analysis, all responses will be cross-checked for the correctness of answers,
extracted and coded, and then analyzed using (SPSS) version 25 for more investigation. Researcher: The dependent variable (Students’
personality traits) and the independent variables will be divided into two groups: dependent and independent (Teaching method). A
combination of descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to see if there is a relationship between personality traits and teaching
methods.

3.8. Ethical considerations

In the study, the following issues or concerns were taken into account: Making people aware of the reason for the survey; Getting
their permission to do it; Responding to people with respect and decorum; Being careful not to look into personal issues; Giving people
the right to protect their integrity Making sure that you do your research in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone; Keeping the identities of
informants and respondents secret Keeping the information you give private; Making sure that the findings are reported accurately and
completely so that they don’t mislead people; thanking people for their help. And to do research, you can’t use other people’s in­
tellectual property without getting their permission first.

3.9. Validity and reliability of data

The validity of research determines how accurately or honestly a method measures what it intended or expected to estimate.
According to Ref. [75], research validity allows the analysis to achieve reliable findings, and higher research reliability indicates that a

11
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

research method is valid. For this study, the researcher addressed the investigation’s validity by formulating objective questions,
reviewing related literature, and adopting measurement instruments used in previous studies. Research validity can be determined
through the judgment of experts, academic scholars, or a statistical approach. According to Ref. [76], the reality of research can be
determined through content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity.
Content or face validity assesses the extent to which measurement items or individual items cover all aspects of the measured
concept. It seeks to examine the correspondence between the respective measurement items and the vision of experts’ judgment [77].
Through content validity, experts’ opinions in the area of research are sought on measurement items of the questionnaire and the
general concept of the research. Corrections are affected by the measurement items before the main study based on the opinions of the
experts or scholars. The questionnaire for this study was rigorously tested and examined by several academic and corporate experts in
supply chain management. Their views were discussed and considered before the primary research and collection of relevant data. To
further test content validity, the researcher conducted a pre-test of the online questionnaire with a few of the target population, whose
feedback and responses were used to validate the survey content and the time needed to complete a set of questionnaires [78].
Construct validity pertains to how a particular test measures the concept that it is intended to measure. According to Ref. [76],
construct validity evaluates how effectively a test measures what it intended to measure. Construct validity is very important in
establishing the overall truth of the research. Construct validity verifies whether the measurement instruments reflect the theoretical
understanding of the concept. Construct validity is subdivided into Convergent validity and Discriminant validity. Both validity tests
are required for the construct validity of the research (see Table 1).
Convergent validity examines if the measures of the same measurement construct are highly correlated. In other words, convergent
validity presents that items about a specific construct should converge [77]. posited that convergent validity examines the extent to
which two measures of similar concepts or constructs are highly correlated, which indicates that the measurement item is genuinely
measuring what it intends to measure. Discriminant validity determines if the measurement items of a construct are not highly
correlated with other measurement items in different constructs. Discriminant validity is said to be achieved when a low correlation
exists with measures of different concepts or constructs. This means that the questionnaire was reliable and valuable for collecting
accurate data for the study. Details about the sub-scales of Cronbach’s Alpha are in the Third table, Table 2.

4. Results and discussion

The preceding chapter dealt with the methodology of the research. This current chapter deals with the analysis of the results that
were gathered in the course of the study. These findings from the study are discussed concerning the literature reviewed in chapter two.
A total number of two hundred (200) questionnaires were answered for this study. Out of this number, one hundred and sixty (160)
questionnaires were answered correctly (useable), which forms a response rate of 80% for the University of Ghana. A total number of
fifty-six (56) questionnaires were answered for this study. Out of this number, forty-nine (45) questionnaires were answered correctly
(useable), which forms a response rate of 80% for Huzhou University. The response rate for the retrieved questionnaires for both
universities can be considered sufficient for further analysis of this type of study [79,80]. Tables are drawn to support analysis where
the need arises. The results are presented in sections A-C. The first section (A) takes a look at the demographic information of the
participants, the second section (B) analyses the results with the research question for the study, and lastly, section C, which is the
third, analyzes the results of the research hypotheses.

4.1. Analysis of demographic characteristics

Participants’ demographic information comprises their gender, age, level, and university. The analyses of the retrieved data were
done to achieve the purpose of the study. For the sake of the study’s objective, the gender of participants was considered imperative to
the study, hence establishing the gender distribution of the participants. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the results of the analysis of par­
ticipants for both universities, respectively. Tables 4 and 5: Distribution of Participants Based on Gender.
From Tables 3 and 4, it is clear that there was almost a balance of gender representation, with 85 males representing 53.1% and 75
females representing 46.9% for the University of Ghana while it is clear that there was almost a balance of gender representation, with
24 females representing 53.1% and 21 males representing 46.9% for Huzhou University respectively.
Table 3 shows that there was almost a balance of gender representation, with 85 males representing 53.1% and 75 females rep­
resenting 46.9%. Table 4 shows that there was practically a balance of gender representation, with 85 males representing 53.1% and
75 females representing 46.9%.

Table 1
Data analysis and tools of measurement.
Study Research Questions Tools of measurement

Background Information of Respondents Frequencies and

Percentages
RQ1 What are the dominant personality traits among psychology students in U. G and educational international students of Frequencies and
Huzhou Normal University? Percentages
RQ2 What is the preferred teaching method among psychology students in U. G and educational international students of Frequencies and
Huzhou Normal University? Percentages
RH1 There is a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods Chi-square

12
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Table 2
Reliability of questionnaire.
Sub-Scale Number of Items Reliability Coefficient (α) Internal Consistency

Background Information 4 0.911 Excellent

Dominant Personality Traits 25 0.931 Excellent
Preferred Teaching Method 6 0.928 Excellent
How best do students learn 40 0.901 Excellent
Total 46 0.918 Excellent

Table 3
Distribution of participants based on gender (university of Ghana).
Gender Frequency Percentages (%)

Male 85 53.1
Female 75 46.9
Total 160 100

Table 4
Distribution of participants based on gender (huzhou university).
Gender Frequency Percentages (%)

Male 21 46.9
Female 24 53.1
Total 45 100

Table 5
Distribution for the age ranges of Participants (University of Ghana).
Age ranges Frequency Percentages (%)

Under 18 1 0.6
18–24 122 76.3
25–34 31 19.4
35–44 5 3.1
45–54 1 0.6
Total 160 100

From Table 4, it is clear that there was almost a balance of gender representation, with 24 females representing 53.1% and 21 males
representing 46.9%.
From Fig. 1, it is clear that there was almost a balance of gender representation, with 85 males and 75 females for the university of
Ghana. From this Figure, it is clear that there was practically a balance of gender representation, with 24 females and 21 males at
Huzhou University. Another variable of equal importance to the study was the age of the participants, and Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate
the responses about the age ranges of the participants.

Fig. 1. Bar Graph for Students Gender in both Universities.

13
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Table 6
Distribution for the age ranges of Participants (Huzhou University).
Age ranges Frequency Percentages (%)

Under 18 0 0
18–24 2 4.3
25–34 34 76.3
35–44 9 19.4
45–54 0 0
Total 45 100

Judging from the results in Table 5, it can be explained that a more significant portion of the participants was within the age range
of 18 and 24 years, numbering up to 122 participants and forming 76.3% of the entire participants. This means that most of the
participants are in their early adulthood, which has been the trend in Universities these days. A hand full of participants fell within the
age ranges of 35–44 (5 participants, forming 3.1%). Only 1 participant each for the age ranges of under 18 years and between 45 and
54 years, respectively (1 participant and a percentage of .6). These are outliers, meaning that we do not have many of them in the
University. Per the education system, most students finish Senior High School by 18. This implies that by the time they enter the
University, they will be between 18 and 24. Again, the number of people who enter the University between the age range of 45–54 is
also low.
Judging from the results in Table 6, it can be explained that the minor portion of the participants was within the age range of 18 and
24 years, numbering up to 2 participants and forming 4.3% of the entire participants. A more significant portion of the participants was
within the age range of 25 and 34 years, numbering up to 34 participants and forming 76.3% of the entire participants.
A hand full of participants fell within the age ranges of 35–44 (9 participants, forming 19.4%) and only 0 participants each for the
age range of under 18 years and between 45 and 54 years, respectively (0 participants and a percentage of 0). These are outliers,
meaning we do not have many of them in the University. Per the education system of most foreign countries, most students finish
University by the age of 24. This implies that by the time they enter the University again for postgraduate, they will be between the
ages of 25–34.
Fig. 2 shows that a minor portion of the participants was within the age range of 18 and 24 years, numbering up to 2. The more
significant part of the participants was within the age range of 25–34 years, numbering up to 34. A hand full of participants fell within
the age ranges of 35–44 (9 participants) and only 0 participants each for the age range of under 18 years and between 45 and 54 years
respectively (0 participants). These are outliers, meaning that we do not have many of them in the University. Per the education system
of most foreign countries, most students finish University by the age of 24. This implies that by the time they enter the University again
for postgraduate, they will be between the ages of 25–34 for the University of Ghana, whiles a more significant portion of the par­
ticipants were within the age range of 18 and 24 years, numbering up to 122 participants. This means that most of the participants are
in their early adulthood, which has been the trend in Universities these days. A hand full of participants fell within the age ranges of
35–44 (5 participants), and only 1 participant each for the age ranges of under 18 years and between 45 and 54 years, respectively (1
participant). These are outliers, meaning we do not have many of them in the University. Per the education system, most students finish
Senior High School by 18. This implies that by the time they enter the University, they will be between 18 and 24. Again, the number of
people who enter the University between the age range of 45–54 is also low.
It must be noted once again that the participants for this study were from the Department of Education and Psychology, specifically
the Students of Psychology. They ranged from students in level 100 to level 400. Table 3 represents the analysis of the results con­
cerning the levels of the participants.

Fig. 2. Bar Graph Representing Age Distribution in both Universities.

14
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Table 7 shows that 41 participants, representing 25.6%, were from the level 300 BSc. Psychology class. The level 200 and 400
students had the same number of participants, 40 each, representing 50%—of the group 100 BSc, and psychology students represented
39 (24.4%) of the participants. The table above was not done for Huzhou University because International Postgraduate students are
not grouped into levels or years.
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that 41 participants, representing 25.6%, were from the level 300 BSc. Psychology class. The level 200
and 400 students had the same number of participants, 40 each, representing 50%—of the group 100 BSc. Psychology students
represented 39 (24.4%) of the participants.

4.2. Research Question One: what are the dominant personality traits among students at the university of Ghana and Huzhou University?

Section B seeks to answer research questions 1 and 2 to determine the dominant personality traits and the preferred teaching
method among psychology students at the University of Ghana and Huzhou University. The results for these responses were found in
Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Research question 1 sought to identify the participants’ personalities, and participants were asked about
how they see themselves. The results of the responses are presented in Table 8.
From the table above, it can be seen that among the various personality traits that were identified, conscientiousness is the
dominant personality trait among the participants, with a frequency of 59, forming 36.9%. On the other hand, openness was the least
among the personality traits, with 12 participants starting at 7.5%. The results for the responses are presented in Table 9.
From the table above, it can be seen that among the various personality traits that were identified, conscientiousness is the
dominant personality trait among the participants, with a frequency of 16, forming 36.9%. On the other hand, neuroticism was the
least among the personality traits, with 3 participants starting at 7.5%.
From Fig. 4, it can be seen that among the various personality traits that were identified, conscientiousness is the dominant per­
sonality trait among the participants, with a frequency of 16, forming 36.9%. On the other hand, neuroticism was the least among the
personality traits, with 3 participants for Huzhou University. While it can also be seen that among the various personality traits that
were identified, conscientiousness is the dominant personality trait among the participants, with a frequency of 59, forming 36.9%. On
the other hand, openness was the least among the personality traits, with 12 participants at the University of Ghana.

4.3. Research Question Two: what is the preferred teaching method among students at the university of Ghana and Huzhou University?

Research question 2 sought to identify the preferred teaching method among students in both universities. Table 10 depicts the
results of U.G students.
From Table 10, it was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants was the cooperative learning
method, with a frequency of 66 and 41.3%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was the lecture method, with a frequency
of 2, representing 1.3%.
From Table 11, it was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants was the cooperative learning
method, with a frequency of 18 and making 40.1%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was the lecture method, with a
frequency of 1 representing 3.0%.
From Fig. 5, it was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants was the cooperative learning
method, with a frequency of 66 and 41.3%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was the lecture method, with a frequency
of 2 for the University of Ghana. At the same time, it was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants
was the cooperative learning method, with a frequency of 18 and making 40.1%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was
the lecture method, with a frequency of 1 at Huzhou University.

4.4. Research hypothesis: there is a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods (work on how to report chi-square)

Section C of this chapter will look at the hypothesis for the study. Hypothesis 1 was analyzed using Chi-Square. To find out the
relationship between personality traits and teaching methods chi-square test of independence was used. The variables were assumed to
be nominal.
From Table 12, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between personality traits and teaching
methods. The connection between these variables was statistically insignificant, χ 2 (16, N = 205) = 12.026, p > 0.05. Therefore,
irrespective of one’s personality trait, a teaching method employed by the lecturer will not influence the student.

Table 7
Distribution for the various levels of Participants.
Level Frequency Percentages (%)

100 39 24.4
200 40 25.0
300 41 25.6
400 40 25.0
Total 160 100

15
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Fig. 3. Bar graph showing students level the university of Ghana.

Table 8
Response about the personality traits among students in U.G.
Personality Frequency Percentages (%)

Openness 12 7.5
Conscientiousness 59 36.9
Extraversion 31 19.4
Agreeableness 45 28.1
Neuroticism 13 8.1
Total 160 100

Table 9
Response about the personality traits among students in Huzhou University.
Personality Frequency Percentages (%)

Openness 4 8.1
Conscientiousness 16 36.9
Extraversion 13 28.1
Agreeableness 9 19.4
Neuroticism 3 7.5
Total 45 100

4.5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess the personality traits of students and their desired teaching methods. The findings from this
study suggest that most participants possessed conscientiousness personality traits, and the equal majority of the participant also
preferred the cooperative learning method of teaching. It was evident that among the various personality traits identified, Consci­
entiousness is the dominant personality trait among the participants, with a frequency of 16, forming 36.9%. On the other hand,
neuroticism was the least among the personality traits, with 3 participants for Huzhou University. While it can also be seen that among
the various personality traits identified, Conscientiousness is the dominant personality trait among the participants, with a frequency
of 59, forming 36.9%. On the other hand, openness was the least among the personality traits, with 12 participants at the University of
Ghana. It was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants was the cooperative learning method, with a
frequency of 66 and making 41.3%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was the lecture method, with a frequency of 2 for
the University of Ghana. At the same time, it was discovered that the most preferred teaching method among the participants was the
cooperative learning method, with a frequency of 18 and making 40.1%. The teaching method with the lowest frequency was the
lecture method, with a frequency of 1 in Huzhou University, as seen in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
Research Questions 1: What are the dominant personality traits among students at U.G and Huzhou University?
The finding concerning the dominant personality trait among students at the University of Ghana showed that most participants
possessed the conscientiousness personality trait with a frequency of 59 and recording 36.9%. Also, the dominant personality trait
among students at Huzhou University showed that most participants possessed the conscientiousness personality trait with a frequency

16
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Fig. 4. Bar Graph: A Representation of Students Personality Traits in both Universities.

Table 10
Responses on Participants’ preferred teaching methods in U.G
Teaching Method Frequency Percentages (%)

Discussion 17 10.6
Lecture 2 1.3
Cooperative Learning 66 41.3
Role-play 32 20.0
Brainstorming 43 26.9
Total 160 100

Table 11
Responses on Participants’ preferred teaching methods in Huzhou University.
Teaching Method Frequency Percentages (%)

Discussion 5 10.9
Lecture 1 3.0
Cooperative Learning 18 40.1
Role-play 9 20.0
Brainstorming 12 26.0
Total 45 100

Fig. 5. A Representation of Students Personality Traits in both Universities.

17
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

Table 12
Relationship between personality traits and teaching method.
Chi-Square value Df p-value (2-tailed)

12.026 16 0.742

of 16, forming 36.9%. These students are likelier to exhibit competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, and self-discipline.
This agrees with what [9] discovered about people who possess this personality trait [8]. added that these individuals have been
characterized as dependable, responsible, persistent, planful and organized. People high in Conscientiousness tend to be organized,
thorough, and planning [17].
Research Questions 2: What is the preferred teaching method among students at U.G and Huzhou University?
Results indicated that participants preferred the cooperative learning method to other teaching methods. The suitable way had a
frequency of 66, representing 41.3% for U.G. For Huzhou University, and results indicated that participants preferred the cooperative
learning method, with a frequency of 18 and making 40.1%. This means that participants are more likely to prefer learner-to-learner
interaction, which in the process, fosters successful learning. It is argued that cooperative learning can create a more exciting and
relaxed learning atmosphere (Han, 2014) [32]. Evidence supports the claim that collaborative goal structures were related to higher
performance than competitive and individual goal structures.
Research Hypothesis One: There is a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods.
Chi-square was used to analyze the relationship between personality traits and teaching methods. Results showed no statistically
significant difference between the personality traits and teaching methods χ 2 (16,N = 205) = 12.026,p > 0.05. This means there is no
relationship between participants’ personality traits and teaching methods in both universities. Therefore, the teaching method used
by an instructor or a lecturer does not influence participants’ personality traits. This research supports the conclusions of [56], who
claim that there is little difference in achievement between large and small classrooms and that the technique of presenting the course
materials makes no difference [55]. further claims that no significant difference in exam performance was observed between students
taught through a lecture technique and those oriented through a guided reading method in his research.

4.5.1. Summary of research process

The study was conducted at the University of Ghana and Huzhou University. The study’s main objective was to assess students’
personality traits and preferred teaching methods at the University of Ghana and Huzhou University. A descriptive cross-sectional
design was used to conduct the research. Structured questionnaires, with input from the supervisor, were developed to elicit rele­
vant responses to achieve the study’s objectives. A total number of two hundred (256) participants were voluntarily selected for the
study from the Department of Education and Psychology at U.G and Huzhou University. Two hundred (200) questionnaires were
distributed, but in return, 160 questionnaires were retrieved, forming an 80% response rate for the university of Ghana. Fifty-six (56)
questionnaires were distributed, but in return, forty-six (46) questionnaires were retrieved, forming an 80% response rate for Huzhou
University. Frequencies, percentages, chi-square, and independent t-tests were used to analyze the participants’ responses. Below are
the findings which were made.

i. Majority of the participants possessed the conscientiousness personality trait, whereas a hand full of participants had the openness
trait in both Universities.
ii. Many participants who underwent this study preferred suitable teaching methods over any other way. On the other hand, a few
participants preferred lecture teaching methods in both universities.
ii. There was no statistically significant relationship between personality traits and teaching methods.

5. Key findings

After a thorough discussion of the results, the following key findings were arrived at:
Research Question One: The dominant personality trait among students at both University of Ghana and Huzhou University is the
conscientiousness personality trait.
Research Question Two: The teaching method students at both University of Ghana and Huzhou University preferred is the
cooperative learning method to any other teaching method.
Hypothesis: There is a relationship between personality traits and teaching methods: There is no relationship between students
(participants’) personality traits and teaching methods at both University of Ghana and Huzhou University.

6. Conclusion

As mentioned, Personality traits are a person’s attributes that explain consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and doing [3].
Teaching strategies are the concepts and methods for instruction that teachers use to help students accomplish their targeted learning
objectives. Based on our findings, this study concluded that. Most participants possessed conscientiousness personality traits, followed
by the agreeableness personality trait and extraversion. For Huzhou University, extraversion swapped places with agreeableness. This
implies that students are more likely to be self-disciplined, compassionate and full of energy. On the other hand, only a few students (12

18
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

participants representing 7.5%) possessed the openness to experience personality traits, while students (3 participants representing
7.5%) possessed the neuroticism to share personality traits respectively. Students preferred the cooperative method of learning to the
lecture method. Therefore, it’s high time lecturers reduced the lecture method and incorporated more collaborative learning into
teaching and learning. No significant relationship exists between students’ personality traits and their desired teaching methods, and
this indicates that one’s personality traits would not influence their preferred teaching method.

7. Future work

In as much as this study has discovered some key findings worth noting, there are also new areas that need to be studied or
alternative approaches that could be used to investigate the current problem. This has become imperative because the study could not
cover some equally essential areas. The current study was conducted only at the University of Ghana and Huzhou University, from
where the generalizations were made. It is therefore suggested that other researchers should cover other Universities in and outside
these countries to give the findings a more solid background and broader generalization. Flowing from the first point, the study was
also limited to the Department of Education and Psychology under the Faculty of Educational Foundations at the University of Ghana
and the School of Teacher Education at Huzhou University. It is again suggested that future research in this area should cover de­
partments other than the current department in question to give the study a more comprehensive coverage and generalization. This
current study looked at students’ personality traits and preferred teaching methods. Future research works can attach the construct of
academic performance to give the study a more factual background.

Author contribution statement

Osei Gideon Opoku: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Abass Adamu: Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Opoku Daniel: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

8. Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13011.

References

[1] A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, Individual differences and beliefs concerning preference for university assessment methods, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35 (9)
(2005) 1968–1994.
[2] D. Cervone, L.A. Pervin, Personality: Theory and Research, John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
[3] P.T. Costa, R.R. McCrae, The NEO Inventories 1, in: Personality Assessment, Routledge, 2014, pp. 229–260.
[4] R.R. McCrae, A. Terracciano, Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 (3) (2005)
547.
[5] W. Chang, A. Jones, R. Kunnemeyer, Interactive teaching approach in year one university physics in Taiwan: implementation and evaluation, in: Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning And Teaching, vol. 3, The Education University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies, 2002, June,
pp. 1–23. No. 1.
[6] A. Furnham, S. Medhurst, Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: a study of four instruments, Pers. Indiv. Differ. 19 (2) (1995) 197–208.
[7] M.R. Barrick, M.K. Mount, T.A. Judge, Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next? Int. J.
Sel. Assess. 9 (1-2) (2001) 9–30.
[8] M.R. Barrick, M.K. Mount, The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis, Person. Psychol. 44 (1) (1991) 1–26.
[9] J.M. Digman, Leadership Is an Art, Double day, New York, 1996.
[10] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, Personality predicts academic performance: evidence from two longitudinal university samples, J. Res. Pers. 37 (4) (2003)
319–338.
[11] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, Personality traits and academic examination performance, Eur. J. Pers. 17 (3) (2003) 237–250.
[12] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface, Br. J. Psychol. 95 (2) (2004) 249–264.
[13] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, Personality and Intellectual Competence, Psychology Press, 2014.

19
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

[14] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, G. Dissou, P. Heaven, Personality and preference for academic assessment: a study with Australian University students,
Learn. Indiv Differ 15 (4) (2005) 247–256.
[15] A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, F. McDougall, Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance, Learn.
Indiv Differ 14 (1) (2003) 47–64.
[16] M.M. Sanchez, E.I. Rejano, Y.T. Rodríguez, Personality and academic productivity in the university student, SBP (Soc. Behav. Pers.): Int. J. 29 (3) (2001)
299–305.
[17] M.O. Amponsah, L. Asamani, Personality Traits of Teachers and Desired Leadership Styles, 2015.
[18] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, G. Ahmetoglu, A. Furnham, Little more than personality: dispositional determinants of test anxiety (the Big Five, core self-evaluations,
and self-assessed intelligence), Learn. Indiv Differ 18 (2) (2008) 258–263.
[19] L.F. Zhang, Does the big five predict learning approaches? Pers. Indiv. Differ. 34 (8) (2003) 1431–1446.
[20] A. Duff, E. Boyle, K. Dunleavy, J. Ferguson, The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance, Pers. Indiv. Differ. 36 (8)
(2004) 1907–1920.
[21] Å. Diseth, Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement, Eur. J. Pers. 17 (2) (2003) 143–155.
[22] S.O. Sokan, E.A. Akinade, Development Psychology: A Basic Text for Colleges and Universities, Caltop, Ibadan, 1994.
[23] J.P. Guilford, Factors and factors of personality, Psychol. Bull. 82 (5) (1975) 802.
[24] D.W. Fiske, Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44 (3) (1949) 329.
[25] W.T. Norman, Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings, J. Abnorm. Soc.
Psychol. 66 (6) (1963) 574.
[26] L.R. Goldberg, Analyses of Digman’s child-personality data: derivation of Big-Five factor scores from each of six samples, J. Pers. 69 (5) (2001) 709–744.
[27] O.P. John, S. Srivastava, The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives, 1999.
[28] R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa Jr., Personality trait structure as a human universal, Am. Psychol. 52 (5) (1997) 509.
[29] R.B. Cattell, Advances in Cattellian Personality Theory, 1990.
[30] S. Buckles, Using Cases as an Effective Active Learning Technique. Teaching Economics to Undergraduates. Alternatives to Chalk and Talk, 1998, pp. 225–240.
[31] T.L. Constantopoulos, A cooperative approach to teaching mineral identification, J. Geol. Educ. 42 (3) (1994) 261–263.
[32] D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research, Interaction Book Company, 1989.
[33] D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, M.B. Stanne, Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis, 2000.
[34] D. Cervone, L.A. Pervin, Personality: Theory and Research, John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
[35] D.A. Trisliatanto, The competency development model based on performance orientation and team work, Jurnal Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan 18 (2) (2016).
[36] F.B. Othman. A Study on Personality That Influences Teaching Effectiveness, 2009. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, USM.
[37] S. Mammadov, Big Five personality traits and academic performance: a meta-analysis, J. Pers. 90 (2) (2022) 222–255.
[38] R.L. Daft, The Leadership Experience, Cengage Learning, 2014.
[39] T.A. Judge, J.E. Bono, Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership, J. Appl. Psychol. 85 (5) (2000) 751.
[40] N. Bozionelos, The big five of personality and work involvement, J. Manag. Psychol. (2004).
[41] T.A. Wright, What every manager should know: does personality help drive employee motivation? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 17 (2) (2003) 131–133.
[42] H.J. Eysenck, S.B.G. Eysenck, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, 1984.
[43] W.S. Dunn, M.K. Mount, M.R. Barrick, D.S. Ones, Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant
qualifications, J. Appl. Psychol. 80 (4) (1995) 500.
[44] D. Watson, L.A. Clark, Extraversion and its positive emotional core, in: Handbook of Personality Psychology, Academic Press, 1997, pp. 767–793.
[45] A.M. O’Donnell, D.F. Dansereau, Scripted cooperation in student dyads: a method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance, in:
Interaction in Cooperative Groups: the Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, 1992, pp. 120–141.
[46] R.R. Tallman, N.S. Bruning, Relating employees’ psychological contracts to their personality, J. Manag. Psychol. (2008).
[47] I. Levin, J.P. Stokes, Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: role of negative affectivity, J. Appl. Psychol. 74 (5) (1989) 752.
[48] D.B. Turban, T.W. Dougherty, Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success, Acad. Manag. J. 37 (3) (1994) 688–702.
[49] H. Edwards, B. Smith, G. Webb, Lecturing: Case Studies, Experience and Practice, Routledge, 2012.
[50] S. Bates, R. Galloway, The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study, in: Proceedings of the HEA STEM Learning and
Teaching Conference, vol. 1, 2012, April.
[51] A. Derakhshan, F. Shakki, An investigation into the relationship between Iranian EFL high-and low-proficient learners and their learning styles, Sage Open 8 (4)
(2018), 2158244018809408.
[52] F. Shakki, Iranian EFL students’ L2 engagement: the effects of teacher-student rapport and teacher support, Language Related Research 13 (3) (2022).
[53] P. Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, 2003.
[54] A. Walker, H. Leary, A problem based learning meta analysis: differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels,
Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based learning 3 (1) (2009) 6.
[55] F. Rahman, J.K. Khalil, N.B. Jumani, M. Ajmal, S. Malik, M. Sharif, Impact of discussion method on students performance, Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2 (7) (2011)
84–94.
[56] B. Joyce, M. Weil, With Calhoun, E., 2000, Models of Teaching, 2009.
[57] M. Montola, J. Stenros, Beyond Role and Play: Tools, Toys and Theory for Harnessing the Imagination, 2004.
[58] M. Karwowski, M. Soszynski, How to develop creative imagination?: assumptions, aims and effectiveness of role play training in creativity (RPTC), Think. Skills
Creativ. 3 (2) (2008) 163–171.
[59] K. Rowan, Glossary of Instructional Strategies (Beesburg.com), 2014.
[60] J. Flowers, Problem solving in technology education: a Taoist perspective, J. Technol. Educ. 10 (1) (1998).
[61] R.E. Slavin, Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 21 (1) (1996) 43–69.
[62] C.W. Bowen, A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement, J Chem. Educ. 77 (1) (2000)
116.
[63] B.J. Millis, Why faculty should adopt cooperative learning approaches, in: Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: across the Disciplines, across the
Academy, 2010, p. 10.
[64] P. Bicen, D.A. Laverie, Group-based assessment as a dynamic approach to marketing education, J. Market. Educ. 31 (2) (2009) 96–108.
[65] H.P. Longstaff, Analysis of some factors conditioning learning in general psychology, J. Appl. Psychol. 16 (1) (1932) 9.
[66] R. Birney, W. McKeachie, The teaching of psychology: a survey of research since 1942, Psychol. Bull. 52 (1) (1955) 51.
[67] H.E. Stanton, Teaching methods and student personality—the search for an elusive interaction, Instr. Sci. 2 (4) (1974) 477–501.
[68] P.T. Costa Jr., A. Terracciano, R.R. McCrae, Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (2)
(2001) 322.
[69] A. Feingold, Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 116 (3) (1994) 429.
[70] E.E. Maccoby, C.N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences, vol. 2, Stanford University Press, 1978.
[71] T. Chamorro-Premuzic, E. Bennett, A. Furnham, The happy personality: mediational role of trait emotional intelligence, Pers. Indiv. Differ. 42 (8) (2007)
1633–1639.
[72] A. Furnham, A.N. Christopher, J. Garwood, G.N. Martin, Approaches to learning and the acquisition of general knowledge, Pers. Indiv. Differ. 43 (6) (2007)
1563–1571.
[73] A. Furnham, A. Eracleous, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: hertzberg meets the Big Five, J. Manag. Psychol. 24 (8) (2009)
765–779.

20
O.G. Opoku et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13011

[74] D.F. Polit, C.T. Beck, Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.
[75] S.C. Tiwari, A. Kumar, A. Kumar, Development & standardization of a scale to measure socio-economic status in urban & rural communities in India, Indian J.
Med. Res. 122 (4) (2005) 309.
[76] U. Sekaran, R. Bougie, Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, john wiley & sons, 2016.
[77] J.F. Hair, D.J. Ortinau, D.E. Harrison, Essentials of Marketing Research, vol. 2, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY, 2010.
[78] L.J. Cronbach, P.E. Meehl, Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychol. Bull. 52 (4) (1955) 281.
[79] N. Burns, S.K. Grove, Understanding Nursing Research, Saunders, Philadelphia. PA, 2003.
[80] N. Burns, S.K. Grove, Understanding Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and Utilization, 2005.

21